P-40 top fighter?

[spicmart]

Could the P-40 have become a top-of-the-line fighter when mated with a two-stage Merlin or Griffon to rival a Spitfire lX or XlV respectively?
And of course with a less draggy cooling system, if installation is possible, such as a ventral (Mustang style), underwing or leading edge radiator.

 

[Tkdog]

So...make it into a Mustang?

I think that within a certain context the P-40 was a top fighter. It performed critical missions around the world and was useful until the end. It was so useful in fact that iterative improvements were desirable rather than losing production to reinvent it into something that was already being developed from new elsewhere.

 

[tomo pauk]

Performance-wise: certainly. We know that last of the XP-40Qs was eventually making 420+ mph with the latest 2-stage supercharged V-1710 + water injection, while also climbing fast. The 2-stage Merlin will offer better power, and the 2-stage Griffon yet more. Such a P-40 will probably resemble on P-40F fuselage cupled with wings from XP-40Q of mid-1944 that had coolers in the wing.

XP-40Q test in 1944

Such a P-40 will still be a short range fighter in the eyes of USAAF, though, unless we find a way to add another 50, or yet better 100 gals of fuel internally, and I don't see an easy way to do it, especially if the radiators are in the wing.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40Q was about 20-30mph slower than a Mustang while carrying less fuel, fewer guns and less ammo per gun.
Yes if you stuffed even more power into the airframe you could get it to go faster but obviously it was not competitive with newer aircraft.
Sticking in a two stage Griffon means hundreds of pounds more weight, and larger radiators.
The P-40Q was already operating at about double the weight of the prototype P-36/Hawk 75.

 

[Dan Fahey]

The P-40Q was about 20-30mph slower than a Mustang while carrying less fuel, fewer guns and less ammo per gun.
Yes if you stuffed even more power into the airframe you could get it to go faster but obviously it was not competitive with newer aircraft.
Sticking in a two stage Griffon means hundreds of pounds more weight, and larger radiators.
The P-40Q was already operating at about double the weight of the prototype P-36/Hawk 75.

But it was a bit lighter and more maneuverable and just as fast below 20k.

 

[spicmart]

But it was a bit lighter and more maneuverable and just as fast below 20k.

Yes. The question was if it was possible to make the P-40 a machine which was able to fight with the best on equal terms. Its short range meant that it would have been more of a point-defense interceptor in the mold of the Spitfire.
As both were considerable more draggy than a Mustang. a Griffon would have been needed to reach the performance envelope of the P-51.
Would such a machine be on par ith the Spitfire Mk. 14 or was the P-40 an inherently outdated design (for which reason.)?

 

[Kevin J]

Yes. The question was if it was possible to make the P-40 a machine which was able to fight with the best on equal terms. Its short range meant that it would have been more of a point-defense interceptor in the mold of the Spitfire.
As both were considerable more draggy than a Mustang. a Griffon would have been needed to reach the performance envelope of the P-51.
Would such a machine be on par ith the Spitfire Mk. 14 or was the P-40 an inherently outdated design (for which reason.)?

As I see it the only potential customer for the P-40Q is Soviet Naval Aviation for use in the Kuriles, but do we really want to give them something that can reach into Hokkaido. I think not.

 

[Dan Fahey]

As I see it the only potential customer for the P-40Q is Soviet Naval Aviation for use in the Kuriles, but do we really want to give them something that can reach into Hokkaido. I think not.

The P40-Q was ready in 1943
Should not been hard to change production line to upgrade the plane.
Would have been a healthy improvement over the K/L/M/N models.
Even if Curtis just used the improved engine.
Would have matched the advantage the German, Italian, Japanese planes had.

Already had good speed, maneuverability, break off tactics.
More power would have improved offensive capabilities, climb and speed.

 

[fubar57]

The P-40Q was not ready in '43...Curtiss XP-40Q Fighter

 

[pbehn]

Yes. The question was if it was possible to make the P-40 a machine which was able to fight with the best on equal terms. Its short range meant that it would have been more of a point-defense interceptor in the mold of the Spitfire.
As both were considerable more draggy than a Mustang. a Griffon would have been needed to reach the performance envelope of the P-51.
Would such a machine be on par ith the Spitfire Mk. 14 or was the P-40 an inherently outdated design (for which reason.)?

The Mustang I was designed to be the next generation of fighter, it was supposed to be better than the P-40 that is why the British ordered it, off the drawing board. The P-51 with the Merlin engine became the best long range escort fighter, but extreme long range isn't all that desirable in most cases, you certainly cant call a P-40 short ranged. The P-51 was just generally better, uprating the P-40 could close the gap, like uprating the Hurricane close the gap on the Spitfire and Bf109 but you will never close some gaps completely. The P-51 was a later and better plane in most scenarios, though not in every respect. If I was attacking ground targets I think I would prefer the P-40, and while that wasn't what it was designed for it isn't what the P-51 was designed for either and neither was long range escort.

 

[Shortround6]

The P40-Q was ready in 1943
Should not been hard to change production line to upgrade the plane.
Would have been a healthy improvement over the K/L/M/N models.
Even if Curtis just used the improved engine.

In actual fact end of production for the

P-40K...........Nov 7, 1942
P-40L...........April 28, 1943
P-40M.........Feb 1943

First flight of the P-40Q was June 13th 1943 and neither the plane nor the engine was ready for production at that or for a considerable time after that.
I am not sure that P-40Q-1 flew with the Allison V-1710-101 engine in June as a different source (Vees for Victory) says the -101 engine was not ready for testing until July of 1943 and the engine was being flown in November of 1943 in the XP-40Q.

Please note the -101 engine was rated at
1325hp for take-off
1500hp war Emergency at 6,000ft. ( at 3200rpm)
1150hp Military power at 22,400ft. at 3000rpm.

Please note that a grand total of either 3 or 4 of these engines were built before Allison moved on to a better engine.
Also note that the 2 stage engine in the P-63 did not pass it's type test until Nov or Dec of 1943.

Near the end of 1943 North American was making close to 300 P-51s a month and had thousands on order. Chances of the Army canceling any of those orders and buying P-40Qs is slim and none and slim has left town on the last train.

The speed of 422mph was done in March or April of 1944 with another engine that had yet to make it to production status and required 75in of MAP and water injection and the 12 counterweight crankshaft.

More power would have improved offensive capabilities, climb and speed.

The same could be said for any aircraft. The problem is actually supplying the extra power.

 

[jetcal1]

Could the P-40 have become a top-of-the-line fighter when mated with a two-stage Merlin or Griffon to rival a Spitfire lX or XlV respectively?
And of course with a less draggy cooling system, if installation is possible, such as a ventral (Mustang style), underwing or leading edge radiator.

Please see XP-46.

 

[Shortround6]

Please see XP-46.

Yep.

Somehow, despite a smaller wing, the pointy nose and "superior ventral radiator" it managed to be slower than a P-40D/E using the same engine.

as for sticking the Griffon in the P-40, anything is possible if you spend enough money, time and sweat. Wither it is worthwhile is a different story. The two stage Griffon is over 650lb heavier than the Allisons used in P-40s and over 550lbs heavier than the V-1650-1 Merlin used in the P-40F/L. Needs a bigger prop and radiator and oil cooler.

Just maybe, had there been any extra two stage Griffons hanging about the warehouse Curtiss could have stuffed one in the P-60 instead of resorting to stuffing the R-2800 radial into the airframe.
P-60 with two stage Merlin

YP-60E with R-2800.

Navy style two stage supercharger.

The XP-60 series went through (planned or actually built) 6 different engines. One would think that if it was so easy to convert the P-40 they would have done so.
Please note that one XP-60 prototype using a single stage Merlin was actually faster than a P-40F using the same engine while using a larger wing and weighing more. AN indication that a new airframe was the way to go instead of cramming new engines into the old P-36/P-40 wing and fuselage.

 

[jetcal1]

Yep.
View attachment 563863

Somehow, despite a smaller wing, the pointy nose and "superior ventral radiator" it managed to be slower than a P-40D/E using the same engine.
View attachment 563864

as for sticking the Griffon in the P-40, anything is possible if you spend enough money, time and sweat. Wither it is worthwhile is a different story. The two stage Griffon is over 650lb heavier than the Allisons used in P-40s and over 550lbs heavier than the V-1650-1 Merlin used in the P-40F/L. Needs a bigger prop and radiator and oil cooler.

Just maybe, had there been any extra two stage Griffons hanging about the warehouse Curtiss could have stuffed one in the P-60 instead of resorting to stuffing the R-2800 radial into the airframe.
P-60 with two stage Merlin
View attachment 563865

YP-60E with R-2800.
View attachment 563866
Navy style two stage supercharger.

The XP-60 series went through (planned or actually built) 6 different engines. One would think that if it was so easy to convert the P-40 they would have done so.
Please note that one XP-60 prototype using a single stage Merlin was actually faster than a P-40F using the same engine while using a larger wing and weighing more. AN indication that a new airframe was the way to go instead of cramming new engines into the old P-36/P-40 wing and fuselage.

The P-60 has as much relation to a P-40 as F-18E does to a F-18A. The YP-60C/D/E has as much resemblance to the P-60A/B as the YB-15 does with the B-29/s.

 

[Shortround6]

I think, but am open to correction, that the P-60 series all used the same wing.
However the fuselages did vary considerably. Point is why would Curtiss spend a lot of time/ effort in trying to stuff large engines into the P-40 when they had a more modern wing/airfoil already built to use?

 

[jetcal1]

I think, but am open to correction, that the P-60 series all used the same wing.
However the fuselages did vary considerably. Point is why would Curtiss spend a lot of time/ effort in trying to stuff large engines into the P-40 when they had a more modern wing/airfoil already built to use?

My bad on the wing. I figured with all the changes to the wheel well doors and armament that the engineers has changed up the wing as well from the original laminar flow wing.

I don't know, Curtiss didn't exactly have a stellar track record during WWII, even the C-46 had it's share of detractors and it could probably be considered their most successful aircraft along with the SNC-1 (CW-22). Funny thing is Don Berlin pointed out there was development left in the airframe but management wouldn't give him the time of day. Who knows what he could have turned the P-40 into.

 

[Shortround6]

It would be interesting to find out when Don Berlin said there was development left in the P-40. Or when management wouldn't give him the time of day.

Don Berlin was involved in the XP-46 and XP-55 project (in it's early stages) and in Jan 1942 (about the time the first production P-40Fs were being built) he was hired by GM to head up their Fisher body division and began the saga of the Fisher P-75. How much of a connection he maintained with CUrtiss I have no idea.
I don't know if he was involved in the XP-53/60 saga or not (he was there at the start) and since the XP-53 was considered on improved P-40 (or at least use fuselage parts) we are alos left wondering what he may have meant by "development left in the air frame".

 

[swampyankee]

Curtiss had a complicated history. It also had, according to some published articles (alas, I do not have citations) a reputation for less than ideal treatment of its engineering staff, which may have led to them having trouble recruiting and keeping the best talent. Certainly, it can be argued (and I'm one of the people who would do so) that Curtiss struggled to create serviceable aircraft after the P-40: the SB2C was serviceable, but just, and the aircraft they attempted to develop during and shortly after WW2 were, except for the SB2C, less than successful, with the Curtiss SO3C Seamew being an abject failure.

 

[wuzak]

The P-60 has as much relation to a P-40 as F-18E does to a F-18A. The YP-60C/D/E has as much resemblance to the P-60A/B as the YB-15 does with the B-29/s.

The P-60 (XP-60, no letter) was a P-40D with a laminar flow wing and Merlin engine. It was originally to be built with the IV-1430 as the XP-53, but the IV-1430 was late, so the Merlin engine it was.

The XP-60 was converted to the XP-60D by fitting a V-1650-3 Packard Merlin.

The comparison with the F-18A and F-18E is straange, because the F-18E was essentially and all new aircraft and was bigger.

The XP-60 and XP-60D were a P-40D with a new engine and wings.

 

[spicmart]

Yep.
View attachment 563863

Somehow, despite a smaller wing, the pointy nose and "superior ventral radiator" it managed to be slower than a P-40D/E using the same engine.
View attachment 563864

as for sticking the Griffon in the P-40, anything is possible if you spend enough money, time and sweat. Wither it is worthwhile is a different story. The two stage Griffon is over 650lb heavier than the Allisons used in P-40s and over 550lbs heavier than the V-1650-1 Merlin used in the P-40F/L. Needs a bigger prop and radiator and oil cooler.

Just maybe, had there been any extra two stage Griffons hanging about the warehouse Curtiss could have stuffed one in the P-60 instead of resorting to stuffing the R-2800 radial into the airframe.
P-60 with two stage Merlin
View attachment 563865

YP-60E with R-2800.
View attachment 563866
Navy style two stage supercharger.

The XP-60 series went through (planned or actually built) 6 different engines. One would think that if it was so easy to convert the P-40 they would have done so.
Please note that one XP-60 prototype using a single stage Merlin was actually faster than a P-40F using the same engine while using a larger wing and weighing more. AN indication that a new airframe was the way to go instead of cramming new engines into the old P-36/P-40 wing and fuselage.

Why was the XP-46 slower?